Ramesh Chandra Barik Vs the State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh Chandra Barik Vs the State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Opposite Party No.2 (Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation) to take an independent decision on the Petitioner's claim in light of the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003, particularly Section 483, expeditiously and preferably within three months, with the Court expressing no opinion on the tenability of the claim.

Issue for consideration

Whether, notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the Petitioner's prayer and the earlier orders of this Court, the Petitioner has a fresh cause of action because his claim vis-a-vis Section 483 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 was never the subject matter of consideration of this Court. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that the interest of justice would be subserved if Opposite Party No.2 takes a decision independently, irrespective of the negation of the Petitioner's earlier claim, in light of the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003, particularly Section 483.

Key takeaways

Taking into account the age of the Petitioner, such decision is to be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with the writ petition.ratio¶24
The Court expressly stated that it has not expressed any opinion regarding the tenability of the Petitioner's claim, which has to be gone into independently.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.6398 of 2026 (order dated 16.04.2026; Coram: Justice V. Narasingh). Petitioner Ramesh Chandra Barik, occupant of the Government land bearing Plot No.151, Khata No.91, Mouza-Samantapuri, Bhubaneswar for 45 years, asserted that notwithstanding the earlier rejection of his prayer pursuant to earlier orders of this Court, his case merits consideration under Section 483 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 dealing with land right and property rights to slum dwellers. His representation to the Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.2) was pending consideration, prompting the writ application alleging inaction. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision independently, irrespective of the negation of the earlier claim, in light of the provisions of the said Act, particularly Section 483, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months, expressly without expressing any opinion on the tenability of the claim, which is to be gone into independently.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.6398 of 2026

Ramesh Chandra Barik …

Petitioner

Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Advocate

-versus-

1. State of Odisha

…. Opposite Parties

2. The commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation 3. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

Order No.

16.04.2026

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is an occupant of the Government land bearing Plot No.151 under Khata No.91, Mouza-Samantapuri, Bhubaneswar and has been staying there for 45 years.

It is asserted that notwithstanding the earlier rejection of his prayer and in view of the provisions contained in Section 483 of Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 dealing with land right and Property rights to slum dwellers, the case merits consideration.

Page 1 of 3

It is submitted that ventilating his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to the commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Opposite Party No.2) and the same is pending consideration.

Alleging inaction in the matter of such consideration, the present writ application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court the matter does not merit any consideration.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the claim of the Petitioner vis-à-vis the provisions as contained under Section 483 of the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 was never the subject matter of consideration of this Court. As such, he has a fresh cause of action.

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the Opposite Party No.2 is called upon to take a decision independently irrespective of the negation of the earlier claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Provisions as contained in Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 more particularly Section 483, as adverted to hereinabove.

Page 2 of 3

Taking into account the age of the Petitioner, such decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the writ petition.

It is needless to state that, this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the tenability of the claim, which has to be gone into independently. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. U.C.C. as per the rules.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Soumya

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 18:56:47

Page 3 of 3